Bills

Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 September 2022.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (23:03): I rise to speak on the Hon. Frank Pangallo's Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill. I will be the lead speaker for the government in this chamber. This bill will require the installation and registration of automated external defibrillators, known as AEDs, in certain buildings, facilities and vehicles. This is an important measure to protect our community, ensuring access to potentially life-saving equipment when it is most in need.

There is substantial evidence that widespread access to AEDs can help to prevent deaths by cardiac arrest. They are user-friendly and help guide users every step of the way to administer use to someone in a life-threatening situation. It is true that an AED cannot actually do any harm to someone who is unconscious. An electric shock is only distributed if it is required.

According to the Heart Foundation, timing is everything in a cardiac arrest. Every minute without defibrillation to restart the heart reduces the chance of surviving by 10 per cent. If the bystanders have not been trained in CPR, that simply means that time is wasted. Public access to AEDs will reduce this risk.

Supermarket giant Coles has recently collaborated with the Heart Foundation in a move to have defibrillators installed in all of their supermarkets and distribution centres. In conjunction with the installation, a minimum of five employees at each location will be trained to be able to use a defib to assist anyone who suffers from a cardiac arrest.

The importance of access to these machines was proven this September when a young mum was shopping for a sweet treat with her daughter at a Coles supermarket when she suddenly collapsed. The 51-year-old mother, Mary, suddenly went into cardiac arrest in the middle of the Victorian store. Three young Coles workers—Connor, Roy and Emilia—quickly sprang into action, running for the defibrillator and beginning CPR with guidance from the 000 operator. Those three young workers saved Mary's life. Without that access to the defibrillator, Mary's outcome could have been very different.

When we were in opposition, Labor supported this legislation, which was introduced at the time by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. Unfortunately, the former Marshall Liberal government did not prioritise this bill, which saw it lapse in the previous term. The Malinauskas Labor government is pleased to see the legislation reintroduced and to support a vote on this legislation prior to the end of the sitting calendar, within months of securing government, recognising this bill's importance in supporting good and potentially life-saving health outcomes for our community.

Since that time, there have been positive developments in regard to the technology used, and new single-use AEDs are available in the market, which has helped to reduce the implementation costs. The Malinauskas Labor government will be supporting the bill and the subsequent amendments filed by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. The coverage of AEDs across the designated buildings and facilities will ensure that South Australians have access to these easy-to-use devices most of the time. If there is not an AED in the building where it is needed, there will be one close by.

This government has already taken positive steps in installing AEDs in some of the places this bill mandates, including all South Australian Ambulance Service, MFS and SES vehicles. In addition, SA Ambulance is currently developing a register and software, the GoodSAM program, that will allow members of the public to locate AEDs in their vicinity. This will meet the requirements outlined in the legislation.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has filed further amendments to the bill that provide clarity on the implementation of this legislation. The government supports these amendments. There is a greater benefit of a long lead-in time for the implementation of such a significant reform, allowing time for both the government and non-government agencies to adequately prepare for the commencement of these measures.

The implementation date of 1 January 2026 across non-government sites provides these owners with a reasonable lead-in time to ensure that they can appropriately plan and prepare for the installation of AEDs. In supporting this bill, the Malinauskas Labor government is reaffirming its commitment to the community in ensuring better health outcomes for those, like Mary, in an emergency situation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (23:07): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this particular bill. Given the state Labor government's failure to deliver on its promise to fix ramping, it is vital that we positively consider all proposals that provide South Australians with greater assurance that there are measures in place to protect their health.

This bill requires the installation and registration of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in certain buildings, facilities and vehicles and for other purposes. Currently, there are thousands of defibrillators deployed on private premises and in public places. However, there is no legal requirement for any site, including high-risk sites, to have an AED.

The SafeWork SA code of practice fact sheet advises that an AED is advised and Safe Work Australia's national First Aid in the Workplace Code of Practice states that providing one can reduce the risk of fatality from cardiac arrest. The opposition understands that the cost of AEDs has fallen significantly in recent years. The cost of an AED varies from approximately $2,600 for the large types typically deployed in public areas to smaller cell AED devices approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which cost around $360 for a single-use device.

The South Australian Ambulance Service states that for more people to survive cardiac arrest South Australia needs more AEDs available in communities, workplaces, schools and clubs in the event of an emergency. As the Hon. Ms Bourke has already stated, for every minute that defibrillation is delayed, the chances of a person surviving a cardiac arrest decrease by 10 per cent.

The bill is supported by healthcare stakeholders such as the AMA and the Heart Foundation of Australia. Business SA, however, have raised concerns with the fines stipulated in the bill, as well as the up-front costs the bill will impose on South Australian businesses in the current challenging economic circumstances. If this bill passes, South Australia will become the first jurisdiction in Australia to mandate the installation and registration of AEDs. While in principle there are clear benefits to having these devices available widely, there are a number of legal and practical issues that arise as a result of the bill and its drafting.

The opposition has placed amendments on file to the penalty scheme of the bill to ensure penalties are reasonable and proportionate, particularly as small businesses may be captured by the bill into the future. It is certainly hoped that this government will follow the former government's lead in ensuring that grants are available to sporting clubs to support them in complying with this legislation. As South Australia continues to endure the worst ramping in this state's history, the opposition recognises the importance of devices such as AEDs in keeping South Australians safe and supports the bill.

I will briefly speak to the opposition amendments, which are all consistent and relate to the penalties. We understand there is no other jurisdiction that has mandated the installation and maintenance of AEDs; therefore, there is no direct comparison with similar legislation in respect of penalties.

Our understanding from SA-Best is that penalties are based on section 157 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, which applies to an owner of a building failing to comply with a notice relating to the adequacy of the fire safety of that building. It can be argued that these are not particularly comparable. Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (General) Regulations 2017, failure to install a smoke alarm in a house or dwelling could attract a maximum penalty of $750, which would be a much more similar comparison.

Business SA has raised concerns with the fines in the bill as well as the up-front costs, so our amendments generally move the penalty provisions to reduce the penalty amounts to a maximum penalty of $2,000 and an expiation of $500. The expiation amount is more than the average cost of an AED and therefore provides an incentive to purchase an AED without being onerous to sporting clubs and other small businesses that may fall under the scheme.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (23:12): I rise in support of this legislation put forward by the honourable member. My understanding is the finalisation of this Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill has been a long time coming and after many years, so I hope it passes with support today.

Basic equipment that will save the lives of South Australians is practical and a very workable solution. It should not be, as the honourable member has previously mentioned, about dollars and cents but increasing the chance of survival when someone experiences a cardiac arrest in public. It struck me in September when the honourable member said:

Once upon a time, you could count on an ambulance reaching you within eight minutes. That blew out to 16 minutes, and now it is a frightening lottery.

If the ambulance cannot attend swiftly to save a life, we need backup measures. I support this bill, and I thank the honourable member for his work.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (23:13): I rise to speak briefly in favour of the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill on behalf of the Greens. In so doing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in this regard. I recognise that the honourable member first introduced this bill into this place back in 2020, before my time in the parliament. The Greens were supportive of the bill at that time and we are again supportive of the legislation. I certainly recognise the leadership of the honourable member in keeping this issue on the agenda. It is certainly one that will save lives.

In Australia, approximately 30,000 people experience cardiac arrest outside of hospital, with only 9 per cent of those surviving. Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone, and it is one of the biggest killers of Australians under the age of 50.

According to the Heart Foundation, without chest compressions and the use of a defibrillator, a person in cardiac risk will not survive. Cardiac arrest can take less than 10 minutes to cause death; sometimes an ambulance can take longer than that to arrive. We know that that is the case here in our state, as we continue to deal with the ramping crisis that both major political parties have overseen due to their failure to invest in our health sector.

Access to defibrillators can be the difference between life and death. They are simple to use, do not give a shock unless required, and provide guidance to the user through vocal prompts. They are safe, they are straightforward. Why should we not ensure that they are available for use in the community?

I will say, the Hon. Frank Pangallo did bring into Parliament House recently some of these mobile devices and showed these to me. I was really impressed with the technology and I can see that really has the potential to be used in lots of different settings and also potentially reduces the cost for entities that are going to be required to install these.

The bill will ensure that public buildings are fitted with an automated external defibrillator and I am sure that will result in saving more lives. My office has heard anecdotally of batteries of automated external defibrillators being stolen and I understand that they can have significant resale value. Regular replacement due to theft could be a burden for community-owned organisations if they are required to have a functioning defibrillator available under the legislation.

We do hope that the government will support community-owned buildings, such as local sporting groups, in managing this cost. This is a matter that the Hon. Justin Hanson raised on behalf of the Labor Party in the last parliament and it is an important point and one that I hope Labor will take up now that they are in government.

We note that the Hon. Frank Pangallo has amendments to this bill to remove the South Australia Police from requiring automatic external defibrillators and I understand that this is due to the financial implications of including SAPOL in the legislation. We support the amendments that set the commencement date to 2025 for public buildings and 2026 for private buildings. This allows time for organisations to forecast the expense in budgets and to prepare for the change in legislation. This is a significant change and so the amendment being advanced by the honourable member makes sense.

The bill has been widely supported by organisations, including the Heart Foundation and the Ambulance Employees Association. The Greens are also supportive of having automatic external defibrillators accessible in public spaces. If these devices are readily available in the situation of cardiac arrest, then they will save lives.

I will take this opportunity to just briefly indicate the Greens will not be supporting the amendments foreshadowed by the opposition. The suggestion that there be a very low penalty applied we do not believe would ensure compliance with this new regime. It is important that the penalty provides an adequate disincentive and ensures that there is appropriate compliance. We are concerned that the amendments from the opposition undermine that objective. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (23:18): I would like to thank all the honourable members in this place for their contributions and their acknowledgements in regard to the benefits of having AEDs in our community. I must say, I am extremely grateful to the Malinauskas government and also the opposition, the Hon. Sarah Game from One Nation, and also the Hon. Robert Simms, for their unanimous support for this measure.

This is Australia-first legislation and also we will be one of the few jurisdictions in the world to mandate the installation of AED machines. On my recent overseas visit to Europe, I went to Spain where I had meetings with the rail manufacturing company Talgo. While I was in Madrid and other parts of Spain on their transport, I was amazed that the Spaniards had adopted this policy of installing AEDs throughout the country. They were just everywhere. You could not walk 500 metres and not see one with their distinctive green sign.

I was on one of Talgo's trains on a trip to Zamora and they are in their trains. It does not matter where you go, a defibrillator is within easy reach, so therefore I am extremely happy that we are going to see that happen in South Australia, that these devices, these life-saving devices, are going to be available. I am certain that not only will people benefit from their life-saving devices, but they also will provide an assurance within the community that help is nearby, particularly in a situation that we have seen in the past with ambulances unable to get to people who have suffered chest pains.

We saw that pretty sad situation back in August with Andrew Rehn, who called 000 suffering chest pains in his car on Anzac Highway. It took 42 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. Unfortunately, they could not revive him. He was waiting for 30 minutes before help had arrived from a nearby hotel at the Highway Inn, which does have a defibrillator. In that I will mention the great corporate citizens we have in this country and in this state that are rolling them out. The AHA is one of them, and they are in many of their hotels, and I am sure within a short period of time they are going to be everywhere. I congratulate them for that initiative.

We know that the large supermarket operators—Coles and Woolworths—have rolled them out in their stores. We just heard the story about Mary whose life was saved in a Coles store, and I thank the Hon. Emily Bourke for bringing that to our attention. I received a letter from Coles, who were very supportive of what I was doing, and they told me that not a week goes past in this country without a defibrillator saving one of their shoppers. Not a week goes by without a defibrillator in one of their stores saving one of their shoppers, so that gives you an indication of their importance. They are in many other places. You are starting to see them rolled out, but certainly they are going to be a more familiar sight in South Australia now that we have unanimous support for this.

I am extremely grateful for this because I have been a passionate supporter of this. As I think I have mentioned in my previous speeches in this place, I am a heart-attack survivor and I know how close you can come to dying if you do not get immediate treatment or access to life-saving treatment, and this will give that.

The Hon. Robert Simms mentioned the compact AEDs that are now available in Australia. They will cost about $400. They are one-off usage but they are quite portable, slightly larger than a smart phone, and come with all the bells and whistles you would see with a larger one. They tell you what to do performing when CPR, and I will certainly have one in my car, and hopefully people will put them in their cars. We can see them in public transport as this bill also will outline that we hope that they are taken up and used by the community and they do have them in their vehicles.

I will not go through the statistics again, because everyone has mentioned them. We all know that. I will just say that I do have a number of amendments which relate to when the legislation will come into effect after assent and also about which buildings will have to install these devices. I had a meeting with the health minister and SA Ambulance back in September shortly after I wrote to the health minister following the death of Mr Ren and also a situation with a relative who had to wait 2½ hours for an ambulance. Luckily she survived.

The genuine interest in this initiative from the health minister and also from SA Ambulance was quite compelling for me. They certainly saw the benefits of it and also the use of software that can be put on mobile phones and whatever, an app known as GoodSAM is being used in Victoria at the moment which will give locations to people who also have first aid training and where these AEDs are located.

While I am extremely gratified that the opposition has made an about turn from the last time—because they opposed it last time, and I thank them for supporting it this time—I am afraid I cannot support their amendments. The reason for that is you really do not want such low penalties to disincentivise people from taking them up.

It is an important initiative, and I can tell you, Mr President, that I know there are other jurisdictions in this country that are looking at our legislation. Hopefully, with the passage of this bill in the Legislative Council tonight and then in the House of Assembly, it will send a message loud and clear around the country that South Australia is a heart-safe state. With that, I ask that the bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: A brief question through you, Chair, to the government. One of the issues I flagged in my second reading remarks was this issue around community organisations and what could potentially happen if the defibrillator is stolen or if the batteries are stolen. Is this an issue that the government have turned their mind to, and do they have a view on how they might manage that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will be honest with you. I am happy to take this question and take that back to the minister's office to look further into that. I do not have the information on that in front of me.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can I just add this? I think I mentioned this in my second reading speech. I have not heard the one about the batteries, but acts of vandalism on these devices are extremely rare. People tend to respect them.

One thing that perhaps we may have to look as well, which I have not mentioned, is ensuring that there is access to them externally or, if they are in a building, that there may be a method of people being able to access a particular building to get to an AED. That may well happen through regs, but I think one of the solutions there is that if somebody does call 000 in relation to that, the devices are registered. There may be avenues for access to those devices.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 2, lines 9 and 10 [clause 2(2)]—Delete '12 months after the day on which this Act is assented to by the Governor' and substitute 'on 1 January 2025'

This amendment deletes '12 months after the day on which this act is assented to by the Governor' and substitutes 'on 1 January 2025'. In effect, the compliance date for government-owned buildings and vehicles is 1 January 2025.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: For the ease of the chamber, I am happy to highlight that we are supporting all the amendments put forward by the Hon. Frank Pangallo. Also, in relation to this amendment, we are supporting it because it provides a lead-in time for government to ensure coverage across all applicable sites.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are supporting this amendment. I do have some questions at clause 2, though. Would it be appropriate for me to ask them now?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: A question for the mover of this bill, the Hon. Mr Pangallo: the bill is to commence in two stages, firstly to publicly owned buildings. We note from the honourable member's second reading explanation that there will be a total cost of $3.6 million to the government. Is he aware of whether the government has agreed to and accepted that particular costing?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I understand that they would have if they are supporting this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for his answer. Can he advise whether there are any predicted ongoing costs to business with respect to this scheme?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you for the question. As later amendments will show, after having discussions, I have made amendments so the act will not apply to specific smaller businesses and cafes. That will ease the pressure off those businesses. There will be ongoing costs of course, as there are for anything else, particularly safety requirements, much like you see with fire extinguishers. There would be a cost perhaps in relation to maintenance, and I cannot tell you what it would be, but it is not considerable at all.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that response. I think it has been noted that this will be a national first, but is he aware of any other jurisdictions globally that may have implemented a similar scheme?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the honourable member for her interest in it and question. As I just mentioned, in Spain—and it was a surprise to me, I was not aware of it—they are certainly placed in locations that I visited in the main city and some of the regional areas, and they are on trains. It is quite clear that they have mandated that.

I know that there are some cities in the United States, in particular Seattle, the home of a manufacturer of AEDs, where they are throughout the city. Tokyo has more than 40,000 AEDs placed right through the city. They are at Chicago O'Hare Airport; you will find one almost every 100 metres there. I have also received, in relation to this legislation, an email from South Africa expressing interest from cardiac specialists there who are following the passage of this bill. They seem to be interested in also following our lead.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, lines 7 to 9 [clause 3(1), definition of Building Code]—Delete the definition of Building Code

This relates to the definition of 'building code'. We are deleting the definition of 'building code'. If that is deleted, it is a consequential amendment following the removal of 4K, which is not referred to anywhere else.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 14 [clause 3(1), definition of emergency services organisation, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

This relates to the definition of 'emergency services organisation'. This deletes South Australia Police from the definition. This has been done after I have had consultations with the Police Association. It does not necessarily relate to additional costs. I think they were more concerned that the addition of these devices in their vehicles could be a distraction from other duties that they undertake.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I find this amendment really curious. Some questions we have in relation to this particular amendment the government may wish to respond to as well, given they are the government and have access to these agencies. SAPOL are often first responders and, therefore, they are possibly one of the most logical organisations to continue to be included in this legislation. I think we deserve an explanation from the government as to whether they support this amendment or not and if they can give a more fulsome explanation as to why one of their key first responders would be excluded from this legislation.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As the Hon. Frank Pangallo has provided, we are supporting this amendment because we have consulted with SA Police. While keeping the AEDs in the CFS and MFS and SAAS and SES is part of the scope, the government supports this amendment. We have consulted with SA Police and, after that consultation, it became clear that the police had significant concerns about the practicality of housing AEDs within each of their vehicles—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Because they take up so much room?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: No, but perhaps you just want to hear the answer—and then making vehicles accessible to any member of the public. Whereas it would be more appropriate to have them in an ambulance, CFS and MFS vehicles. That was the reasoning behind that.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Well, that sort of raises some more questions.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: How do we make a distinction between police having one of these devices in their vehicles and, say, one in a community centre which is accessible to the public?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Because often if the police are involved, it could be a different situation to when there is an ambulance or a CFS or an MFS involved. A police vehicle is rather different to the other vehicles you described.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Certainly, if this device was in a police vehicle, the only people who would be accessing it would be the police.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Concern was raised by the police that that would not be the case.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will keep it short. I appreciate where the honourable member is coming from, but in my discussions with the police it was also pointed out to me that, in many of these serious incidents when ambulances are called, police are also in attendance, so you will already have an AED there that is installed in an ambulance.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: With all due respect, under this government you will get a police car much sooner than you will get an ambulance. Can the honourable member, or indeed the government, advise what the views of the CFS, MFS and SES are in relation to this?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I do not have that information in front of me.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What they use? Sorry, I did not—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The CFS, MFS and SES: what are their views?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: They are supportive of it.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Being in their vehicles?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What about their views on whether these should be included in SAPOL vehicles or not?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What their views are about whether they should be included in SAPOL vehicles?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Correct.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have not got their views. They are not concerned about SAPOL vehicles; they are only concerned about their own.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Not a lot of answers forthcoming this evening, are there.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I do have some sympathy with the argument being advanced here by the opposition. I must admit that I did think it was unusual that there was an amendment to remove these devices from police vehicles. That said, I know from the statements made by the government, and also the Hon. Mr Pangallo, that they have consulted with SAPOL and that this is the advice that they have given. So on that basis and in the interest of expediting the bill, the Greens will be supporting the amendment from the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have two more questions. Can either the mover of this bill or the government advise how many vehicles across the range of state cars in different agencies have AEDs installed already and how many will need to have them installed?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the honourable member for her question. I cannot give you the numbers of how many, but I can take it on notice for the honourable member. At this point, I am not even sure how many Country Fire Service or Metropolitan Fire Service do have them, that have done them voluntarily. I can get those figures for you, but if they do not have them they will have to put them in their vehicles.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On what basis was the Hon. Mr Pangallo able to come up with a costing if he has no idea of how many devices will need to be installed?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In fact, I initially got a costing from the former Treasurer. But the government is satisfied that he can meet the requirements of installing them in their vehicles.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I just need to correct the record. Our advice is that the former Treasurer, Mr Lucas, quoted $18 million in 2019, not $3.6 million.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: He did quote $18 million, and I did not know where he got that figure from. I think at the time the proposal would have covered a lot more buildings, premises and businesses than this bill does.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 35 [clause 3(1), definition of relevant authority, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

This relates to the definition of the 'relevant authority'. It removes SAPOL from the definition of relevant authority. It is consequential to the previous amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 4, lines 32 to 39 [clause 4(k)]—Delete paragraph (k)

This amendment deletes paragraph (k). New builds may still be covered in future by regulations. This was to prescribe that class 2 buildings are apartment buildings with more than 10 sole occupancy units. They are typically multi-unit residential buildings where people live above and below each other. The NCC describes the space that would be considered the apartment as a sole occupancy unit (SOU). Class 2 buildings may also be single-storey attached dwellings where there is a common space below—for example, dwellings above a common basement or car park.

Class 5 buildings are office buildings that are used for professional and commercial purposes, including class 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings. Examples of class 5 buildings are offices for lawyers, accountants, general medical practitioners, government agencies and architects. Class 6 buildings are typically shops, restaurants and cafes. They are a place for the sale of retail goods or the supply of services direct to the public. Some examples are a dining room, bar, shop, kiosk, part of a hotel or motel, a hairdresser or a barbershop, public laundry, a market or showroom, a funeral parlour and a shopping centre.

Class 7 buildings include two sub-classifications: class 7A and class 7B. Class 7A buildings are car parks. Class 7B buildings are typically warehouses, storage buildings or buildings for the display of goods or produce that is for sale. A factory is the most common way to describe a class 8 building. It is a building in which a process or handicraft is carried out for trade, sale or gain. The building can be used for production, assembling, altering, repairing, finishing, packing or cleaning of goods and produce. It includes buildings such as a mechanic's workshop. It may also be a building for food manufacture such as an abattoir. A laboratory is also a class 8 building, even though it may be small in size. This is due to the high potential for a fire hazard.

Class 9 buildings are buildings of a public nature. Class 9 buildings include three sub-classifications: class 9A, class 9B and class 9C. Class 9A buildings are generally hospitals, which are referred to in the NCC as healthcare buildings. They are buildings in which occupants or patients are undergoing medical treatment. This includes a clinic or day surgery where the effects of the treatment administered would involve patients becoming unconscious or unable to move.

Class 9B buildings are assembly buildings in which people may gather for social, theatrical, political, religious or civil purposes. They include schools, universities, childcare centres, preschools, sporting facilities, nightclubs or public transport buildings. Class 9C buildings are aged-care buildings. Aged-care buildings are defined as residential accommodation for elderly people, who, due to varying degrees of incapacity associated with the ageing process, are provided with personal care services and 24-hour staff assistance to evacuate the building.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some questions for the honourable member moving the bill. In relation to clause 4—Meaning of designated building or facility, I appreciate the list that he has just read out, which is actually paragraph (k), which is being excluded from the bill, so set those aside. That is no longer captured within this legislation. What process did the honourable member undertake to form the basis of his list of designated buildings or facilities for paragraphs (a) through to (j)?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Can you clarify that question, the honourable member?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes. Within the bill, there is clause 4—Meaning of designated building or facility. For the purposes of the definition of designated buildings or facilities, there are paragraphs (a) through to (j). My question is: what process did the honourable member undertake to form the basis of that particular list?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: For that list? The basis for that was our extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders when we were putting together the definitions of the buildings and the ones that we believed we needed for which buildings were required to have these AEDs fitted. That was as a result of negotiations, and that was extensive negotiations over the last three years with stakeholders.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the honourable member advise whether churches are excluded from the bill or whether they are included in the bill?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That would be probably covered in a building or facility, or class of building or facility, prescribed by the regulations.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to prescribed sporting facilities, does the honourable member have an understanding of whether the government is going to provide sporting facilities with grants to cover this scheme?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am unclear about the government's intentions of how they intend to roll these out. I imagine that grants will be probably part of the scheme, much as it was when the Marshall government had their own grants for some facilities.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the government able to advise whether that is the case or not?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I do not have that information in front of me, but we are supporting this amendment, as has been identified. It was taking in a broad section of the small shops that were going to be required to be covered under this. We feel that the amendment that has been put forward does enable us to cover a large range of the community and provide the support where required.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some questions at clause 5. Can the honourable member confirm whether the bill will only apply to private businesses with a premises greater than 600 square metres? Can he advise whether that would, for instance, apply to a large hotel?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The definitions of what constitutes a prescribed building are: a prescribed building is a building on land that is used for commercial purposes and has a floor area of more than 600 square metres being constructed, or having major works done to it after the relevant day. A prescribed building is also a building with a floor area of more than 600 square metres if constructed before the relevant day where there is a change of land use to commercial, or a building or class of building prescribed by the regulations.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the honourable member advise how this particular threshold of 600 square metres was arrived at?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Again, it was arrived at with consultation with stakeholders. The stakeholders indicated to us that it needed to be at least in a minimum-sized area like 600 square metres—smaller ones probably would have taken in cafes and smaller businesses, and it would not have been purposeful for them to have that. We felt that that was the appropriate size—that 600 square metres or greater—for a building, rather than a smaller building. That was as a result of discussing it with the stakeholders, which included business and building owners.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 5, line 33 [clause 7(2), penalty provision]—Delete the penalty provision and substitute:

Maximum penalty: $2,000.

Expiation fee: $500.

I did provide an explanation through my second reading. This particular amendment reduces the maximum penalty from $20,000 to $2,000 and also allows for an expiation fee of $500 which, as I stated, is more in line with smoke alarms, which are a similar life-saving device.

Having an expiation regime is often quite useful in legislation because it enables that to be utilised rather than trying to make the case through the courts. It is a much easier way for governments to ensure compliance with these, so that is why we are moving this particular amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As I have indicated, SA-Best will be opposing this amendment. As I also indicated, we do not want a reduction in penalties to be viewed as being an incentive for somebody not to actually take it up. We certainly do not want a disincentive, or what could lead to these lower penalties. I will just point out that we consulted, of course, with parliamentary counsel as well, as to other penalties that applied in areas like fire safety. What we are proposing—that they remain where they are—is similar to what happens in issues with fire safety equipment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: As I indicated previously, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment, for the reasons articulated by the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As highlighted earlier, the government will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the opposition, for similar reasons to the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I just reiterate that the government does not support this amendment as it creates inconsistency with existing fire safety requirements outlined in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, which was also highlighted by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 12

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can read where the numbers lie. This amendment is a similar principle to the previous one in that we believe that expiations are a very effective way to ensure there is compliance at a level that does not need to be taken through the court system. Clearly, we do not have the numbers to have that supported here tonight, but I just place it on the record. In relation to the subsequent amendments—they are not consequential—under similar principles, I am not moving them.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 18 passed.

New schedule.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 10, after line 31—Insert:

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Transitional provision

This Act does not apply in respect of any building, facility or vehicle owned by a person that is not the Crown (or an agency or instrumentality of the Crown) until 1 January 2026.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As highlighted, we are supporting all amendments put forward by the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would just like to indicate we are supportive of the amendments, but I do have some other questions. I missed the opportunity because we have whipped through a number of clauses, but I do actually have some more questions on the bill.

The CHAIR: Do you want to ask those questions now?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, if that is in order, thank you very much. In relation to the register that is proposed, does the honourable member have some feedback about when the government intends to make the register publicly available and operational?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the honourable member for her question. In my discussions with the minister and SA Ambulance two or three months ago, I understand that currently they are undertaking a trial of at least one app and I am not sure what stage that is at.

There was an app underway, and I imagine the results of that would be imminent and made available by the minister. We will certainly get an indication before this legislation comes into effect in at least two years in the government. As we have just moved in this transitional provision, that would be in 2026. I expect that we will see the results of that trial, and also the government would no doubt be looking at what apps it intends to adopt. I do know that they are also looking at the GoodSAM App, which is already in operation and working quite successfully in Victoria.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the honourable member advise us how a business will register through this particular site?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: The business would need to register once they have taken delivery, and they have purchased a device. I am not sure what device they would purchase, but I can tell you that if they purchase one from St John Ambulance for instance, that would be immediately registered. If they buy the smaller device that I have spoken about, Cell AED, they also come specifically numbered, and they would be registered by the supplier as well as the purchaser.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the honourable member advise what COTA's advice was on how older South Australians will access this information online?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Thank you for the question. I cannot recall what COTA's advice was in relation to elderly residents accessing this information online. Are you referring to the fact that if they suffer a cardiac arrest, how would they—just explain.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are talking about apps. My parents are particularly elderly and not particularly good with technology. With knowing where to access these things on their phones and the like, I know that COTA and SACOSS and number of organisations often have concerns about information that is placed online for elderly people because it can be difficult for them to access. If someone's spouse is having a cardiac arrest and that elderly person wants to access that information, I imagine that would be a particular concern.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the member for her question. In actual fact, the way the app will essentially work is if somebody—as the honourable member referred to, an aged person—has a cardiac arrest and somebody calls for an ambulance, they will ring 000, and if it is in relation to assistance that may require an AED, the operator will have instant access to the register. If there are persons there who could render assistance, the operator will tell them where the nearest AED is in the event that an ambulance cannot get there within a specified period of time.

The app essentially also works through the 000 with a register. At the same time, it will also contain a register of people who will then subscribe to that who will have had first-aid training and the technology will then enable the 000 caller to try to locate a first-aid responder who might be in the area that has already subscribed to the app. That is in effect how the app works, rather than having to have it on your phone and thinking that you are going to get the help. The app is all about showing where these are, where there are first-aid responders.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Just to expand on the honourable member's response, I also think the true intent of this bill is about making AEDs more accessible. As was suggested through murmurs over on our side, when you are going through a cardiac arrest, it might not be so much that you are looking for an app, it is just that this will now be available in more public facilities, and we heard about the importance of it now being available in Coles and what that means for their customers. Yes, there will be online information available, but the true intent of this bill is about making AEDs more accessible to people when they are out and about.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It seems superfluous to have a clause about it then but, be that as it may, can the honourable member provide some information about what the awareness strategy is going to look like?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It will be for the government to determine what that is going to look like—SA Health. I imagine SA Health will have quite a constructive and informative education program that they will put out, in much the same way that they do with many of their other health initiatives, such as COVID warnings and other information. I am sure the government is quite capable of putting together an information package for the community. Not only will it be done online and through printed material but also, I imagine, they may run TV ads, newspaper ads and radio ads. That is really at the discretion of the government.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Has the honourable member had any discussions about what that would look like with the minister or officers from his department?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the honourable member for her question. No, not quite. My profession is a journalist and not a marketing person, but I have had enough experience in seeing how you would market particular items or whatever. I really do not think it is that difficult to imagine the type of education program you are going to see.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So she'll be right then. Can the honourable member advise how this particular program will be monitored, say, over a five-year period? Does he or the government have any comments on that?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I take offence to the remark 'she'll be right'. No, it will not be 'she'll be right'. Let me be quite honest, it is not brain science to actually—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: It is not hard work to actually work out an education and informative program. It is quite easy for a government to be able to do that. They have the expertise to do it. I can envisage what it is likely to look at simply because I know how you would try to sell this thing, but I cannot give you the exact details or whether they will use the yellow Wiggle Greg Page or somebody else. That is at the discretion of the government, not at my discretion at all, but I am sure they will have clever marketing people who they will put to work to produce an effective education campaign for this initiative.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As has been highlighted a number of times throughout the amendments, we extended the start time and the period required so that we can have more time to make sure this a successful program. I know it must be hard for the honourable member because when you were in government you did not want to support this bill, a bill that will enable us to have more access to AEDs across our public buildings. I know the honourable member is supporting this today, but we are willing to sit back. We did put these motions through but have extended the time so that you can continue to ask questions, so I think you should show that respect to the honourable member.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the assistant minister for the advice but, with all due respect, I am not the reason why we are here at midnight because I am not the person who has been speaking at length on other matters.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This bill deserves proper scrutiny—

The CHAIR: Order! Let's come back to—

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —and if I was the minister and this was my bill, I would expect people to ask me questions and someone would have some answers.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Lensink, have you asked a question?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have made a comment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I need to answer that. This is the second time the Hon. Michelle Lensink has had a crack at me.

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, I am sorry. I—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I am only interested in the bill at hand.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am interested in the bill as well and I am also interested in ensuring that it makes its passage. I am also mindful of the fact that we are elected representatives and this is the work we do; we are not people who look at their watch waiting to get home. This is not what parliament is all about. I am sorry, but I will not take that reference again from the honourable member. She has already had another crack at me previously over the length of my speeches. I am sorry you do not like them.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (00:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.